Claim rules

[Jeremy69A]

When declarer claims they have had some time looking at their combined assets and when they lay their hand down and make an inadequate statement it is hard for the opponents to get to grips with the hand quickly. The non claiming side is this at an initial disadvantage.

 

The manual of good claiming should include a section on playing out for a few extra tricks against bad opponents so that if and when you do claim it is a simple ending otherwise it does not really save time. I don't see a great deal wrong with the law as it stands. Don't claim unless you are going to get it right. I'm sure we have all seen the attempted claim where declarer has 3 trumps and 3 of the same plain suit in each hand and claims on a cross ruff. Assuming this is not deliberate(in which case surgical removal of a limb without anaesthetic is an appropriate penalty) it is my belief that the claimer should pay for their carelessness. It may give a bonus to the non offending side but many breaches of the law do this.

 

A poor claim is a mistake just as returning the wrong card to let a game through or ruffing a winner accidentally is.

A problem ,on this site, in my opinion is that there are correspondents who are always looking for a reason to excuse the poor claim and allow declarer tricks that they are manifestly not allowed. If they can't phrase their claim properly then they deserve what is coming and will either take more care or continue to lose tricks. Sometimes it is stated that if officials are really tough on claiming it will discourage claimers and slow the game but I think there is little evidence of this. Poor players generally do not claim and when there is a contested claim it usually occupies 8 times as much time as playing it out ever would have done.

[nige1]

I've seen a thousand "the law should do this" or "the law should do that". I've seen zero suggested rewrites of the law that would (presumably) achieve these goals. Such a rewrite would at least provide a concrete platform from which to launch discussion, rather than the current vague pronouncements countered with other vague pronouncements.

I suggested a "concrete" claim-rule that meets the goals I specified.

[blackshoe]

Does it? Sorry, it didn't seem that way to me, from the responses you got.

[cloa513]

Sorry, that is completely wrong. Two reasons: first, many people will not accept the approach. Second, people get things wrong when there is a clear penalty, consider revokes.

How is revoke law clear cut?

It is established late in the game at some uncertain time (some people don't even realise it occurred), the penalties vary all over the place. This law is clear cut because its at one time and while there is some variance in the penalty its not much.

[nige1]

Does it? Sorry, it didn't seem that way to me, from the responses you got.

As yet, nobody except Blackshoe has queried whether the suggested claim-rule met the specified goals. And he only in "vague pronouncements" (Blackshoe's own description) :)

[iviehoff]

IMO, claim law should

• Be short clear and simple enough for players to comply and for directors to consistently enforce.
• Encourage claims rather than deter them.
• Speed up the game, rather than slow it down.
• Rely as little as possible on communication skills and foreign language interpretation.

These aims seem easily achievable.

The problem is that your list of objectives omits the important and necessary objective of an equitable result. That is why your list of aims are so easily achievable, because simple, but unfair, rules are easy to find.

 

People have been objecting to your proposal because it fails to meet their idea of an equitable result. You then say "where does it fall short of the objectives I set out?" The answer is, they don't agree that your list of objectives is complete.

 

Is it equitable that a claimer should be allowed to take advantage of the fact of an objection to his claim to then give a line of play it seems implausible he had in mind when he felt it unnecessary to mention it earlier? No, clearly not. Is it ever acceptable that someone committing an irregularity should gain specifically from that irregularity (and I'm not talking of rub of the green, where a penalty card you never would otherwise have played proves the only way to take a contract down). In general we would say not, but in on-line bridge they have made this trade-off. I don't think this is acceptable for top level FTF bridge.

 

If we are to have a simplified claims process, that would deal adequately with the majority of faulty claims, I think there still needs to be a back-up to it to cover the case where the claimer takes advantage of the fact of the objection to his claim. So maybe we could have something like you suggest, but we would further state that an objection to a claim should be UI to the claimant, and claimant must not take advantage of that information to do something he did not anticipating before objection to the claim. Then at this point if there was a claim of abuse of UI, we would obtain what we have long sought, a weighted adjustment of the score, instead of an adjudication of the claim.

[nige1]

IMO, claim law should

• Be short clear and simple enough for players to comply and for directors to consistently enforce.
• Encourage claims rather than deter them.
• Speed up the game, rather than slow it down.
• Rely as little as possible on communication skills and foreign language interpretation.

These aims seem easily achievable.

The problem is that your list of objectives omits the important and necessary objective of an equitable result. That is why your list of aims are so easily achievable, because simple, but unfair, rules are easy to find.

Thank you, Iviehoff: for accepting that the specified goals may be achievable; and for conceding that the suggested claim-rule may meet them.

People have been objecting to your proposal because it fails to meet their idea of an equitable result. You then say "where does it fall short of the objectives I set out?" The answer is, they don't agree that your list of objectives is complete.

If Iviehoff is using the word equitable in the law-book sense of restoring the status-quo then the suggested rule is an improvement on current claim-law. After a claim, current law stops play. Hence, an artificial result is often unavoidable. Under the suggested rule, if a claim is queried, the hand can still be played out to completion for a table-result. If equitable has the more sensible dictionary meaning of fair and even-handed then, obviously, the suggested claim-law leads to fewer inconsistent rulings because, almost always, the result is determined by the actions of the players themselves..

Is it equitable that a claimer should be allowed to take advantage of the fact of an objection to his claim to then give a line of play it seems implausible he had in mind when he felt it unnecessary to mention it earlier? No, clearly not.

If the suggested claim-rule were in force, this danger would be high-lighted. Even the veriest tyros would know that, if they want to play on, they can do so. They may continue, double-dummy, until satisfied with the claim -- without implying that the claimer has made a mistake. My on-line experience (which I admit is different from Bluejack's) is that this problem doesn't arise, in practice.

Is it ever acceptable that someone committing an irregularity should gain specifically from that irregularity (and I'm not talking of rub of the green, where a penalty card you never would otherwise have played proves the only way to take a contract down). In general we would say not, but in on-line bridge they have made this trade-off. I don't think this is acceptable for top level FTF bridge.

Under the suggested claim-rule, a mistaken claim isn't an irregularity, in itself. Although, with opponents playing double-dummy, it's likely to fail.

If we are to have a simplified claims process, that would deal adequately with the majority of faulty claims, I think there still needs to be a back-up to it to cover the case where the claimer takes advantage of the fact of the objection to his claim. So maybe we could have something like you suggest, but we would further state that an objection to a claim should be UI to the claimant, and claimant must not take advantage of that information to do something he did not anticipating before objection to the claim. Then at this point if there was a claim of abuse of UI, we would obtain what we have long sought, a weighted adjustment of the score, instead of an adjudication of the claim.

Iviehoff may well be right. In an earlier post I touched on the possible need for an anti-fishing rule. Iviehoff's suggestion is the kind of thing I meant when I expressed the hope that it's not beyond the wit of legislators to mitigate flaws in the suggested claim-rule. IMO, we can't expect perfect rules. But we can aspire to better rules.

[AlexJonson]

Nige1

 

Let's look at the human aspect. I might argue that talk about ethics implies the human aspect.

 

Your opponent makes a faulty claim, 7NT is always simplest.

 

You 'know' the claim is faulty, and requires a finesse to make, and that if you asked the player to play on, they would make the contract, for sure.

 

You know that you(?), dburn(?), Jeremy(?), various others would say 'tough luck, one off'. Maybe dburn would find a way of making it seven off.

 

Nige1, if you are in the 'tough luck' camp, your other objectives are out of the window. Because, as a team captain, I will say to my players 'never worry about the opponents mental energy, don't claim until it is overwhelmingly obvious'.

[nige1]

Nige1 Let's look at the human aspect. I might argue that talk about ethics implies the human aspect. Your opponent makes a faulty claim, 7NT is always simplest. You 'know' the claim is faulty, and requires a finesse to make, and that if you asked the player to play on, they would make the contract, for sure. You know that you(?), dburn(?), Jeremy(?), various others would say 'tough luck, one off'. Maybe dburn would find a way of making it seven off. Nige1, if you are in the 'tough luck' camp, your other objectives are out of the window. Because, as a team captain, I will say to my players 'never worry about the opponents mental energy, don't claim until it is overwhelmingly obvious'.

AlexJonson is right about my views, up to a point....

 

• I would prefer a player-friendly claim-rule similar to on-line claim law -- for all the reasons I've stated (including encouraging claims and speeding up the game). Under those rules, declarer would probably make 7NT if the finesse worked. That seems fair to me.
• I don't like face-to-face claim-law. Currently, if declarer misclaims 7NT that needs an unstated finesse, I'm in the "tough-luck" "seven-down" camp (assuming that is the correct interpretation of current law, according to Burns and Co). I don't think directors or players should deliberately break the law. That includes team-captains (although I accept that current rules make claiming a risky business)

[AlexJonson]

AlexJonson is right up to a point....

 

• I would prefer a player-friendly claim-rule similar to on-line claim law -- for all the reasons I've stated (including encouraging claims and speeding up the game).
• I don't like the current face-to-face claim-law. But I'm in the "tough-luck" "seven-down" camp because that seems its correct interpretation. In any case, I don't think directors or players should deliberately break the law. That includes team-captains (although I accept that current rules make claiming a risky business).

 

You'll be able to tell me which Law I'm breaking as a team captain, Nige1?

[bluejak]

(although I accept that current rules make claiming a risky business)

Less risky than taking a finesse. It is only risky if you are lazy or silly. The current rules make claiming perfectly safe for anyone who is careful.

[nige1]

Because, as a team captain, I will say to my players 'never worry about the opponents mental energy, don't claim until it is overwhelmingly obvious'.

I don't think directors or players should deliberately break the law. That includes team-captains (although I accept that current rules make claiming a risky business)

You'll be able to tell me which Law I'm breaking as a team captain, Nige1?

I'm not sure that you'd be breaking any law but you'd need to be careful. I'm not a director so I had to look this up :)

As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

I suppose this is another unenforceable law that hinges on subjective interpretation and mind-reading. :(

[bluejak]

I suppose this is another unenforceable law that hinges on subjective interpretation and mind-reading. :(

No, it is another Law that is helpful to the game and is generally followed. It does not lead to problems in practice.

[nige1]

No, it is another Law that is helpful to the game and is generally followed. It does not lead to problems in practice.

Fair enough.. Where is the line drawn? As an illustrative example, does Bluejack think it's OK for a captain to instruct his team 'Never worry about the opponents mental energy, don't claim until it is overwhelmingly obvious'?

[iviehoff]

If the suggested claim-rule were in force, this danger would be high-lighted. Even the veriest tyros would know that, if they want to play on, they can do so. They may play on until satisfied with the claim -- without implying that the claimer has made a mistake. My on-line experience (which I admit is different from Bluejack's) is that this kind of problem doesn't arise, in practice. ... In an earlier post I touched on the possible need for an anti-fishing rule.

Fairness is more important than you imply. Some really unfair rules would satisfy your criteria. Eg, "claimer gets all of the tricks" is a rule that satisfies your criteria, but is obviously unfair. Less ridiculously, "Play on, cards concealed" or "Play on, claimer's cards selected by the opposition" are other rules that satisfy your criteria, but aren't fair. We do have to decide what is fair. The fact that a table result is obtained is not, of itself, sufficient for fairness to be seen.

 

Fishing is not a problem under the present laws, it practically doesn't arise, such are the rules for settling disputed claims. But under a rule where the result of an objection to your claim is that you play on, then fishing becomes a risk. Doubtless an exceedingly rare risk like the Alcatraz coup, and almost certainly stumbled on by accident rather than engineered.

 

However it is not fishing that I was referring to as the fairness problem of your rule. No. The fairness problem is the case of a claim where the claimer has made a mistake of the kind that the fact of an objection wakes him up to. A lot of the claims that are submitted to this forum as worth discussing are precisely of this nature. So this kind of claim problem remains controversial just under your rule as under the current rule. Of course under your rule they cease to be controversial in the sense that we now have a rule that clearly determines the outcome. But that is rather like saying that the hanging of Derek Bentley wasn't controversial, because the rules were properly followed and that led to him being properly hanged.

 

Suppose the player hadn't considered the possibility of a really bad break in a suit, or had temporarily forgotten there was a trump still out; but now hearing an objection to his claim he wakes up and caters for it and makes his contract. Is that the kind of outcome we want? No, it is taking advantage of UI, and the player who does this should be adjusted against in a play-on-after-the-claim type rule. The situation is even worse when the player, on hearing the objection, can't cater for every possibility he is now warned of, but guesses correctly.

 

Consider the A10xx opposite KQ9x type of case where the declarer (apparently) faultily thought such a holding always amounted to 4 tricks at time of making the claim. Given the opportunity to play on, he now has a roughly 50% chance of making his contract if in fact the J isn't dropping, if the identity of the objector is concealed. In this case, it is not the fact of an objection that helps him, but rather the identity of the objector. On-line, this is fair enough, but in FTF it is probably impossible to conceal the indentity of the objector. I think we would have to say that he must avoid use of UI, and cater for the J being in the hand of the non-objector, going down when the objector has it guarded.

 

There are claims where "play-on" is fair enough. For example, in the "I claim on a double squeeze" case, where the opps said play on and he messed it up, I would say that the table result was fairer than the legally correct ruling of making. The reality is that your rule, made suitably fair, will reduce the number of claims that the director has to deal with. But in a substantial fraction of the cases that are currently controversial, the claimer will be in a position to get an unfair result from the rule, and we need to have a rule to cater with those, which will inevitably involve judgment by a director.

[qwery_hi]

FWIW, From past experience, I've learn't not to claim unless I have all the remaining tricks irrespective of the order in which they are played. And this is something I sometimes advice my partners to do. Not all claims save time, a disputed claim results in more time and mental energy being spent. So by not claiming until it is overwhelmingly obvious, you may be doing yourself and the opponents a favor.

 

Fair enough.. Where is the line drawn? As an illustrative example, does Bluejack think it's OK for a captain to instruct his team 'Never worry about the opponents mental energy, don't claim until it is overwhelmingly obvious'?

[nige1]

Fairness is more important than you imply. Some really unfair rules would satisfy your criteria. Eg, "claimer gets all of the tricks" is a rule that satisfies your criteria, but is obviously unfair. Less ridiculously, "Play on, cards concealed" or "Play on, claimer's cards selected by the opposition" are other rules that satisfy your criteria, but aren't fair. We do have to decide what is fair. The fact that a table result is obtained is not, of itself, sufficient for fairness to be seen.

 

Fishing is not a problem under the present laws, it practically doesn't arise, such are the rules for settling disputed claims. But under a rule where the result of an objection to your claim is that you play on, then fishing becomes a risk. Doubtless an exceedingly rare risk like the Alcatraz coup, and almost certainly stumbled on by accident rather than engineered.

 

However it is not fishing that I was referring to as the fairness problem of your rule. No. The fairness problem is the case of a claim where the claimer has made a mistake of the kind that the fact of an objection wakes him up to. A lot of the claims that are submitted to this forum as worth discussing are precisely of this nature. So this kind of claim problem remains controversial just under your rule as under the current rule. Of course under your rule they cease to be controversial in the sense that we now have a rule that clearly determines the outcome. But that is rather like saying that the hanging of Derek Bentley wasn't controversial, because the rules were properly followed and that led to him being properly hanged.

 

Suppose the player hadn't considered the possibility of a really bad break in a suit, or had temporarily forgotten there was a trump still out; but now hearing an objection to his claim he wakes up and caters for it and makes his contract. Is that the kind of outcome we want? No, it is taking advantage of UI, and the player who does this should be adjusted against in a play-on-after-the-claim type rule. The situation is even worse when the player, on hearing the objection, can't cater for every possibility he is now warned of, but guesses correctly.

 

Consider the A10xx opposite KQ9x type of case where the declarer (apparently) faultily thought such a holding always amounted to 4 tricks at time of making the claim. Given the opportunity to play on, he now has a roughly 50% chance of making his contract if in fact the J isn't dropping, if the identity of the objector is concealed. In this case, it is not the fact of an objection that helps him, but rather the identity of the objector. On-line, this is fair enough, but in FTF it is probably impossible to conceal the indentity of the objector. I think we would have to say that he must avoid use of UI, and cater for the J being in the hand of the non-objector, going down when the objector has it guarded.

 

There are claims where "play-on" is fair enough. For example, in the "I claim on a double squeeze" case, where the opps said play on and he messed it up, I would say that the table result was fairer than the legally correct ruling of making. The reality is that your rule, made suitably fair, will reduce the number of claims that the director has to deal with. But in a substantial fraction of the cases that are currently controversial, the claimer will be in a position to get an unfair result from the rule, and we need to have a rule to cater with those, which will inevitably involve judgment by a director.

• Fairness is a subjective.Under current laws, the ruling on a disputed claim varies with different directors. Players like me view some of these inconsistencies as unnecessary and unfair. (quite apart form the wasted time, hassle. and so on)
• I doubt that "Play on, claimer's cards selected by the opposition" would encourage claims :)
• The Bennet Murder analogy is stretched (a real-life criminal case) . Bridge law is more like civil law, where a ruling for one side means a ruling against the other. The rules of a game do not have to comply with real-life morality (for example, liar dice) or justice (GTA). And players accept draconian penalties in a game (for example, the death-penalty when playing hangman)..
• In Iviehoff's example, where the claimer has KQ9x opposite ATx, requiring four tricks from the suit, at double-dummy, a defender should be able to work out there is no single-dummy sure-trick play for declarer, and play on -- even if he holds four small spades.
• Nevertheless, I concede that the suggested rule has some of the flaws highlighted by Iviehoff. I think it has fewer flaws than current claim-law; and some of its flaws may be fixable .
• For instance, in Iviehoff's example, Iviehoff's suggested UI rule would allow opponents to ask for a ruling at the end of the play.

[nige1]

FWIW, From past experience, I've learn't not to claim unless I have all the remaining tricks irrespective of the order in which they are played. And this is something I sometimes advice my partners to do. Not all claims save time, a disputed claim results in more time and mental energy being spent. So by not claiming until it is overwhelmingly obvious, you may be doing yurself and the opponents a favor.

Perhaps there should be a place on the system-card for such infornation: For example:

• Please don't claim until its overwhelmingly obvious or
• Please don't prolong the play (for example, by playing on although you know that all the tricks are yours).

Presumably, qwery_hi would choose the former. Most players I know would choose the latter.

[iviehoff]

Fairness is a subjective. Under current laws, the ruling on a disputed claim varies with different directors. Players like me view some of these inconsistencies as unnecessary and unfair. (quite apart form the wasted time, hassle.

You are right, fairness is subjective, which is why sometimes there seems to be a range of things which would appear to be a fair outcome, resulting in a divergence of rulings. This exists in UI and MI cases, and can't be fixed for them, so I don't think it is such a problem that it exists also in the fairly rare cases of controversial defective claims.

 

Generally speaking when we identify things in the rules that occasionally have a harsh or unfair outcome, they are rather harsh on the side that committed an irregularity, or made a defective claim, or was in possession of UI. To the extent that completely fair rules are difficult to construct/implement, I think this is the right side to put any residual harshness on. I would be worried with a rule that could be systematically unfair to the other side in certain circumstances.

 

When someone makes a defective claims, sometimes it is plain that they must have miscalculated, though we can't tell exactly how. Other times, they just don't give us enough information to be sure whether they had everything worked out or not. The fact of an objection changes the claimer's mindset, not rarely, but in most cases when there is a defective claim, which is why "play on", even with conditions, is a risk. There is no obvious single fair outcome based on the information available, but there is a range. You have devised a rule that results in a single outcome, but it has the potential to lie firmly outside the range of things that would be seen as fair. Current claim rulings on sides making defective claims can be harsh, but we need to be careful not to be unfair to the other side. I do not believe a panacea solution exists.

 

There is potential for improving the claim law. At least we should find a way to make it a weighted ruling, not a single result adjudication (for those countries that accept weighted rulings). Turning it into a UI problem by saying "play on, your cards exposed, scrupulously avoiding use of UI of the fact of the objection to the claim, or identity of the objector" does this. This of course is for declarer's claims. Defensive claims, these need more thought. Curiously, the present rules on defensive claims are thought to be bonkers precisely because there is a play-on provision in certain cases.

[bluejak]

Fair enough.. Where is the line drawn? As an illustrative example, does Bluejack think it's OK for a captain to instruct his team 'Never worry about the opponents mental energy, don't claim until it is overwhelmingly obvious'?

It depends how far this goes. If he is suggesting playing on when the player knows all the rest of the tricks are his then he is encouraging cheating: no, I do not approve.

 

Furthermore, this is totally pointless advice anyway. Yes, out there no doubt there are some pretty stupid captains who have neither their players' nor the game's welfare at heart but there are are always troublesome people whatever we do.

 

The current claim laws work fine. They may not look as though they do for someone who reads forums but does not play bridge, but how many claims are actually contested? Well, let me see. In the last week I have played 163 hands - fewer than normal - and there were claims on over half: maybe 100 claims. None contested.

 

Ok, let's try a but further back. In the last three months I expect I have played over 2000 hands, but since a higher proportion were played by poorer club players, not quite so many claims. Maybe 900 claims, none contested. Hmmm.

 

Ok, let's try for a year. In the last year how many hands have I played? Now I am really guessing, but 8000 seems a reasonable guess, maybe 2800 claims. In about three cases there was a discussion because there was clearly something wrong with the claim and the claim was amended. But contested, requiring the TD? None.

 

Goodness, there are a lot of contested claims, aren't there?

 

Ok, as a TD, how many contested claims? Well, I actually do not direct a lot, nowhere near as much as I would wish, and I imagine I have had a dozen contested claims in the last year. How many appealed? None. How many where the side ruled against has finished up unhappy? None.

 

Tell me again what is wrong with the current claim Laws?

[iviehoff]

Goodness, there are a lot of contested claims, aren't there?

It is good that you play with players so well schooled over proper etiquette in relation to claims. We are not all so lucky. Perhaps it is because they have you as an example.

 

I would say that at my local club a director call over a claim occurs close to once per session. With revokes at 1-2 per session, not far behind. One or two players in the club treat any brevity or incongruity in a claim statement as an opportunity to lawyer an improved result, so people have learned to call the director immediately there is any possible problem with a claim rather than risk any argument over it. On the other hand, I never saw a UI ruling. The one occasion when there should have been a UI ruling at my table (opp's ghestem mess) both the director and I were distracted by the MI aspect and failed to spot it.

 

On the whole I think people at my club accept that if they make a mess over a claim the result is rarely pretty, and bad losers (people upset iwth the ruling rather than with their folly) are rare. I was once a bad loser in relation to a claim ruling, in that I was briefly upset with the ruling. I confess I did concede a trick, and decided to beg the director for the concession not to stand. After accurately claiming a trick for all the cards in my hand, with order of play, I got confused by a card on the table I had already played to the previous trick, but not turned over, so I conceded a trick for it. I think it is clear the concession should (edit) not have been required to stand, since there is no normal play in which a card is led to trick 14. But I'm not going to pillory a volunteer and somewhat reluctant director for getting it wrong.

[WellSpyder]

I would say that at my local club a director call over a claim occurs close to once per session.....On the other hand, I never saw a UI ruling.

I am stunned - do local players just view a claim as a potential chance to get some extra tricks that they don't deserve? I have never known anyone query a claim unless they needed a bit more time to understand declarer's line or if there was genuine doubt about what declarer had in mind and it could affect the number of tricks. My experience is much closer to Bluejak's - it is probably at least a couple of years since the TD was needed to rule on a disputed claim. On the other hand, there are probably UI rulings at least once every second or third session, partly perhaps since a TD will always be required to judge a UI case while players can often sort out a disputed claim entirely amicably themselves.

[nige1]

You are right, fairness is subjective, which is why sometimes there seems to be a range of things which would appear to be a fair outcome, resulting in a divergence of rulings. This exists in UI and MI cases, and can't be fixed for them, so I don't think it is such a problem that it exists also in the fairly rare cases of controversial defective claims. Generally speaking when we identify things in the rules that occasionally have a harsh or unfair outcome, they are rather harsh on the side that committed an irregularity, or made a defective claim, or was in possession of UI. To the extent that completely fair rules are difficult to construct/implement, I think this is the right side to put any residual harshness on. I would be worried with a rule that could be systematically unfair to the other side in certain circumstances

IMO current rules encourage some infractions because they aren't deterrent enough.

When someone makes a defective claims, sometimes it is plain that they must have miscalculated, though we can't tell exactly how. Other times, they just don't give us enough information to be sure whether they had everything worked out or not. The fact of an objection changes the claimer's mindset, not rarely, but in most cases when there is a defective claim, which is why "play on", even with conditions, is a risk. There is no obvious single fair outcome based on the information available, but there is a range. You have devised a rule that results in a single outcome, but it has the potential to lie firmly outside the range of things that would be seen as fair. Current claim rulings on sides making defective claims can be harsh, but we need to be careful not to be unfair to the other side. I do not believe a panacea solution exists.

I agree. (I said that earlier)

There is potential for improving the claim law. At least we should find a way to make it a weighted ruling, not a single result adjudication (for those countries that accept weighted rulings). Turning it into a UI problem by saying "play on, your cards exposed, scrupulously avoiding use of UI of the fact of the objection to the claim, or identity of the objector" does this. This of course is for declarer's claims. Defensive claims, these need more thought. Curiously, the present rules on defensive claims are thought to be bonkers precisely because there is a play-on provision in certain cases.

I dislike weighted rulings but I concede that they could sometimes be appropriate here. There are problems however. Calling a director would slow down the game and speeding up the game is one advantage of the proposed protocol. The identity of the objector is irrelevant unless opponents are careless.

I feel that this problem exists mainly in the mind of directors.

MO, players would welcome the prospect of more frequent claims that they could reject by continuing double-dummy against a blinkered claimer.

[blackshoe]

Once, back when I played in the 299er section (the club owner/director calls these people her 'babies' — most of them have been 'babies' for nearly 20 years that I know of), I claimed with four tricks remaining. There were no finesses, squeezes or other fancy plays. I laid down my four cards in the order I would play them, saying exactly what I was doing. The nice old lady on my left said "I can't see it; would you play it out please?" :rolleyes:

 

Most of the better players here will more easily accept a claim from their peers than from lesser players. Still, we do get more calls for UI than for claims. One pair, some years ago, got an adverse ruling at a tournament because they broke tempo. For six months to a year after that, they called the TD nearly every time an opponent broke tempo. Once, when I broke tempo, they didn't call immediately, but one of them passed and then said to my (novice) partner "if you bid, I'm calling the director". So I called the TD and suggested that attempting to intimidate my partner was not kosher. The TD of course ignored that and simply explained my partner's obligations to her. :blink:

 

At the biggest game in town (usually close to 30 tables), there are on average probably about 4 or 5 TD calls a session. At the small (usually 4 or 5 tables) game that I used to direct, I averaged about 1 or 2. And that game was mostly the better players in the area (though not necessarily the best).

[nige1]

IMO, claim law should

• Be short clear and simple enough for players to comply and for directors to consistently enforce.
• Encourage claims rather than deter them.
• Speed up the game, rather than slow it down.
• Rely as little as possible on communication skills and foreign language interpretation.

These aims seem easily achievable.

It depends how far this goes. If he is suggesting playing on when the player knows all the rest of the tricks are his then he is encouraging cheating: no, I do not approve. Furthermore, this is totally pointless advice anyway. Yes, out there no doubt there are some pretty stupid captains who have neither their players' nor the game's welfare at heart but there are are always troublesome people whatever we do. The current claim laws work fine. They may not look as though they do for someone who reads forums but does not play bridge, but how many claims are actually contested? Well, let me see. In the last week I have played 163 hands - fewer than normal - and there were claims on over half: maybe 100 claims. None contested. Ok, let's try a but further back. In the last three months I expect I have played over 2000 hands, but since a higher proportion were played by poorer club players, not quite so many claims. Maybe 900 claims, none contested. Hmmm. Ok, let's try for a year. In the last year how many hands have I played? Now I am really guessing, but 8000 seems a reasonable guess, maybe 2800 claims. In about three cases there was a discussion because there was clearly something wrong with the claim and the claim was amended. But contested, requiring the TD? None.

Goodness, there are a lot of contested claims, aren't there?

Ok, as a TD, how many contested claims? Well, I actually do not direct a lot, nowhere near as much as I would wish, and I imagine I have had a dozen contested claims in the last year. How many appealed? None. How many where the side ruled against has finished up unhappy? None.

Tell me again what is wrong with the current claim Laws?

:)

• Current claim law fails to achieve any of the goals listed above. For example, they deter players (including posters in this forum) from claiming.
• When a claim is rejected, the claimer's mistake is usually so obvious that the players often agree an equitable result among themselves at the table. Most players are dimly aware that this is illegal. Presumably, they do it, rather than endure the hassle and waste of time involved in a director-ruling on a disputed claim.
• Hence directors rarely have to rule on disputed claims. But even the most basic and simple cases that are discussed in on-line fora, seem to cause endless controversy. The views expressed are often split down the middle, both in interpreting current-claim law and in applying it to those basic cases..
• When different directors rule differently on identical agreed facts, then players regard it as unfair, especially those on the losing side of a disputed claim.